Author
Topic: Why (Read 14080 times)

Yesterday, I was watching a video entitled "Moving Art - Gratitude," which contained a beautiful, meditative narration by Brother David Steindl-Rast, and I thought to myself, 'This is the true beauty of Christ; this is the essence of Christian spirituality; this would convert billions.' Brother David Steindl-Rast is a Catholic monk - and I found myself thinking, again, 'If such a wise, spiritually awake man is satisfied with remaining as a Catholic, why can't I?' Then, moments later, I was reading about how the Vatican is cracking down on American feminist nuns - and oh, the comments that followed were egregious. I realized then why I have had so much trouble remaining Catholic: "Catholicism" has become more of a political position than it has as spiritual body of believers; there's so much negativity happening in the Catholic Church, and millions upon millions of Catholics from the faithful to the dissident are angry about something; even the monks are confused, many of them becoming Zen masters in addition to priests in the wake of Merton; there is such a dearth of priests that the ones we have are spread like too little butter over bread so that the 99 sheep rather the one which remains faithful are left to wander aimlessly; and there is NOTHING going on in my own parish or any other parish near me…and trust me, as someone who has been part of RCIA, the Knights of Columbus and the Stewardship Commission I should know. There's very little good going on in the Catholic Church. Sure, there are good-hearted souls who feed the hungry, who help destitute in the Phillipines, who act in the name of environmentalism and social justice, who live the words of Jesus and do their best to live holy, fulfilling lives - but this isn't any indication of the truth of the Catholic Church as I have seen and read reports of Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists doing the same.

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down. Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull.

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down. Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull.

I am happy as a Catholic. I've lived the faith and learned the doctrine and trust all sinfulness in the members of the Church to the healing peace of Christ and the counsels of the Holy Spirit.

I read the lives of the saints and the histories of the various periods in the Church and I am enriched as a person and as a member of the Body.

I know that there are millions of Catholics around the world who are third order Carmelites, Dominicans, and Franciscans and all kinds of lay associates of various other orders, so that when I pray the hours at home, I know that there are millions of men and women around the globe praying the holy hours with me.

I love so much of what makes the Catholic Church what she is. I am proud of her members who have not succumbed to sin and to modernisms. So however much I love Orthodox liturgical practice, as an eastern Catholic, I won't simply succumb to the negatives and participate in the schism.

I hope you have a good life. And I'll be interested to see how you treat the Catholic Church once you've walked away.

As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.

As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

As someone who has already done the "walk of shame" (so to speak) away from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church, I would caution you that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side when it comes to political argument. While I have yet to see any "Coptic Voter's Guides" (and I doubt that I will), it is not all that unusual for political arguing to go on. I'm sure it's a cultural thing when it comes to the Egyptians, as I (a non-Egyptian) was raised with the idea that political arguing is best kept off the dinner menu (and I suppose we can add "away from the altar", at least in theory). And yet not a day goes by among us when someone doesn't bring up "Roomney" or "Ubama". This does not infect the liturgy or approach to the faith in the way that it does in the RCC, thanks be to God, but it is still out there. Maybe it's better in other jurisdictions that have more converts/a longer history in the West, but still...I'd like to hope that the true Church of God is identifiable by its right worship, not necessarily by and absence of political argument among its members. Rome, of course, would like to have you think that it is above such human concerns, but its history and current struggles say otherwise. Lord have mercy on those who struggle to remain within it. I've been there. It's really not something I would recommend to anyone.

You forgot "Boosh", though I suppose he's less relevant these days.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 04:57:08 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I am not, nor was I ever, a Catholic, but I ask the OP: is it not possible to divorce the secular side from the spiritual? Cannot you enjoy the writings of your spiritual teachers and consider that the essence of Catholicism, not politics?

When I was an Orthodox Jew, I had serious disagreements about Israel with the majority of Jews (Orthodox or otherwise). It was uncomfortable having to remain silent during the "preaching the choir" conversations guests would have at the Shabbat table, but I made an effort not to make politics a part of my practice. I got my inspiration from reading the old teachers, who, while not entirely separate from the secular world, certainly placed more emphasis on god than allegiance to a nation.

I understand that having a support structure is a huge part of practicing a faith, and you can weaken that structure by choosing not to vote with the block. Unless you want to live as an ascetic, you have to deal with other people who may share the same beliefs but choose to express them in very different ways. It's a trite saying, but focus on what unites you.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I know the Orthodox Church isn't the greenest, but, as you say, at least we don't have to worry about being morally obligated to vote for future President Dolan.

I hope you did not mistake my note to you as a CAF put down...oh my no! I am more than happy to see you convert to Orthodoxy. Your reasoning makes you a natural for moving.

Christ is Risen!

M.

This kind of happy-to-see-you-convert statement is, from my own experience talking with fellow Catholics, surprisingly common among Catholics.

I am more than happy to see people move on, when they demonstrate a clear dislike and disdain for the Catholic Church. I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Yesterday, I was watching a video entitled "Moving Art - Gratitude," which contained a beautiful, meditative narration by Brother David Steindl-Rast, and I thought to myself, 'This is the true beauty of Christ; this is the essence of Christian spirituality; this would convert billions.' Brother David Steindl-Rast is a Catholic monk - and I found myself thinking, again, 'If such a wise, spiritually awake man is satisfied with remaining as a Catholic, why can't I?' Then, moments later, I was reading about how the Vatican is cracking down on American feminist nuns - and oh, the comments that followed were egregious. I realized then why I have had so much trouble remaining Catholic: "Catholicism" has become more of a political position than it has as spiritual body of believers; there's so much negativity happening in the Catholic Church, and millions upon millions of Catholics from the faithful to the dissident are angry about something; even the monks are confused, many of them becoming Zen masters in addition to priests in the wake of Merton; there is such a dearth of priests that the ones we have are spread like too little butter over bread so that the 99 sheep rather the one which remains faithful are left to wander aimlessly; and there is NOTHING going on in my own parish or any other parish near me…and trust me, as someone who has been part of RCIA, the Knights of Columbus and the Stewardship Commission I should know. There's very little good going on in the Catholic Church. Sure, there are good-hearted souls who feed the hungry, who help destitute in the Phillipines, who act in the name of environmentalism and social justice, who live the words of Jesus and do their best to live holy, fulfilling lives - but this isn't any indication of the truth of the Catholic Church as I have seen and read reports of Orthodox, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists doing the same.

People like David Steindl-Rast, Richard Rohr, and Thomas Keating inspire me, but the political authoritarianism of the USCCB and the Vatican is such a let down. Orthodoxy seems to present the nature of the Christian faith without all the Bull.

I guess I don't understand your objection. How can your faith life not affect your voting? Our relationship with Jesus Christ should inform everything we do.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

Oh, please......

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic. I am who I am.

Thank you teacher.

Wow. Your attitude towards me seems to switch with every post you make.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

Please note that in my previously response to this ^^ post I assumed that you meant it seriously. If you meant it sarcastically, which seems entirely plausible in view of post #25, then please disregard my response.

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

Please note that in my previously response to this ^^ post I assumed that you meant it seriously. If you meant it sarcastically, which seems entirely plausible in view of post #25, then please disregard my response.

Your response looked very much like a rejection of my silly note. I won't be back for more.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully expected you to react in such a manner when I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues, but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully expected you to react in such a manner when I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues, but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)

Hi again. First, I sincerely appreciate the conciliatory way you wrote this post. I'm not really sure why the rest of us have been butting heads so much this afternoon -- other that the fact that we're human.

I'm not going to try to fully answer your question at the moment, but here's a couple thoughts. For one thing, you have to keep in mind that I was baptized into Catholicism when I was a baby. I can't entirely relate to why some choose to join the Roman Communion over the Orthodox Communion -- in fact, when speaking with someone (an Anglican let's say) who is debating which of the 2 to join, I don't specifically encourage them to choose Catholicism. I just encourage consideration of both before deciding.

Also, I do certainly understand how you as an Orthodox Christian would want Catholics to swim the Bosphorus. But that, to me, is completely different than what Dr. Dragani was saying, speaking as a Catholic.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Why does that 'amaze' you?

The experiences of thousands of folks I have been honored to run into over my life teaches me that there is nothing 'amazing' about that advice. Likewise, as to those thousands who reconciled themselves to the inconsistencies that have to be dealt with in terms of their relationship with the Latin church in order to remain loyal Eastern Catholics, their loyalty does not 'amaze' me either.

I don't 'expect' that you would 'understand'.

I fully expected you to react in such a manner when I posted my response.

Truth be told, no matter how sympathetic I may be to Greek Catholicism as a whole and to the position Greek Catholics find themselves in today- and no matter how much I may object to the disdain in which they are held by most Latin Catholics and by most Orthodox - I can not understand how, if one possesses a correct, Eastern understanding of eccelesiology and Church history - just how one can construct a justification for remaining in union with Rome at the present time while at the same time professing acceptance of Orthodox Patristics and doctrine.

I understand that some of it is simply custom, some of it is anti-Russianism, some of it is reactive to the disdain from the Orthodox to which I referred- but, when really tries to remove the emotionalism from one's analysis I don't get it.

I know that my family left the Greek Catholic Church NOT because of any great theological epiphany but rather over property rights and small 't' issues, but that was nearly eighty years ago. For three generations we have been Orthodox Christians and as time passes and the Greek Catholic past recedes deeper into the mists of time, I really can not understand their 'raison d'etre.' (I love them anyway, but that is another, probably cultural, story.)

I don't come because I don't accept the Orthodox attack against Catholic doctrine. I don't believe the doctrine of the Catholic Church is inherently and fatally contradictory to Orthodox patrimony and tradition. In fact we share that patrimony. We share the patristic root. The Catholic Church does not begin with the western fathers.

I believe that there is a way that we can accept one another fully without changing much beyond the way we do certain kinds of things independently of one another in terms of jurisdictional issues. In other words, I think that there has to be some common ground turned on the issues of primatial power and authority, but I don't think that means either one of us needs to change internally...just in the way that we would interact with one another.

So I am not coming because I refuse to participate actively in the schism.

Thank you both, I was sort of hoping to turn the discussion around a bit and I appreciate it. EM - your answer is honest and I respect that. Actually, I have issues with an EC who will tell me that they accept union with Rome but not all of the teachings of the Magesterium as if 'union' were somehow divorced from the differences - real and exaggerated - which have divided east from west these many centuries. I remember many a now-departed soul from my grandparents' generation would could tell you with a straight face - yes, we were 'under the Pope' and we prayed for him until he started telling us what to do. Sort of a fingers crossed with a wink type of unity.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him.

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him.

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

+1

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Thank you both, I was sort of hoping to turn the discussion around a bit and I appreciate it. EM - your answer is honest and I respect that. Actually, I have issues with an EC who will tell me that they accept union with Rome but not all of the teachings of the Magesterium as if 'union' were somehow divorced from the differences - real and exaggerated - which have divided east from west these many centuries. I remember many a now-departed soul from my grandparents' generation would could tell you with a straight face - yes, we were 'under the Pope' and we prayed for him until he started telling us what to do. Sort of a fingers crossed with a wink type of unity.

There's something going on when I, as a catechist, can pick up the catechetical text "The Mystery of Faith" by the then Bishop Hilarion, read it and know that I could use it to catechize either Roman rite adults or eastern Catholic adults...with very minor adjustments. That tells me something that I think is important. He thinks it is important too but he is now slightly more constrained in the public sphere than he was earlier in his ministry...at least for now. The doctrinal and theological differences among all Catholics is very slight.

Praxis [fasting and devotions] and liturgy and jurisdictional issues are very distinct in some cases, even within the Catholic Church or within Orthodoxy, and moral issues concerning marriage and human sexuality are managed a good bit differently as well.

If I am talking to a group of Roman rite Catholics on doctrinal issues, I am able to speak to them out of their tradition. When I speak to eastern Catholics, there are some doctrinal issues that are important in the west that might get no more than honorable mention as doctrine of the western tradition, if that much, simply because they are not an integral part of the eastern Catholic tradition.

Talking to Orthodox believers is a mixed bag. Some places that I have to go are very fruitful but they tend to be with friends and people who spend their lives in prayer and study. Other places are a little better than this forum but this forum is difficult.

But the more I do and the more I experience the more I am convinced that today, in this age of instant communication and broad availability of text translations from the fathers, the schism is more a contrivance than anything else. I could say that it has reached a point where it would be impossible to convince me otherwise.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him.

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote

The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote

The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

I wish we could push more of the dissenting hangers-on along a little more rapidly.

I believe you.

Given the fact that more often than not you mis-take some of the subtleties of my comments, I have to take this assertion with a grain of salt... You may believe me but you'd not be able to guess where I'd land on any given case nor would you be able to guess why.

M.

Thank you teacher. May I have another?

Oh Peter, I am sorry. That was much harsher than I meant it to be. Please forgive me...\

Sometimes I think of you as harsher than you are...Sometimes you are difficult to read and I do to you what I cry over, when it is done to me. Drat!! I wish I could take it back.

Fondly,

M.

No need for such sentiments. Your good or bad opinion doesn't influence how I think of myself any more than it influences my remaining Catholic.I am who I am.

From BS to blasphemy.

You should look in the mirror.

He knows where he stands. I think he's just sending out invitations for others to join him.

I try to be good humored, but frankly I felt the "From BS to blasphemy" comment (obviously comparing my post to Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who Am") was a little over the top.

What saddens me is the statement that we are making to others. Among so many Byzantine Catholics, the following premises now seem to dominate:

1. Rome has a messed up ecclesiology, and is wrong to micromanage so much. (I have to agree with this one, at least to some extent).

2. Orthodox ecclesiology is the right model.

3. The claims of the Pope to infallibility in specific instances are false.

4. There is no substantial benefit to being Byzantine Catholic as opposed to being Eastern Orthodox.

Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox. It would be senseless to stay in a situation where a false ecclesiology dominates.

(I should mention that he said this in the context of trying to get ECs to have a more positive attitude toward being EC. Nevertheless, the fact that he said "Anyone who follows these premises to their logical conclusion would - and should become Eastern Orthodox" amazes me. I should also mention that this was more than a decade ago, and I don't know whether his current views are the same or not.)

Another example I could have given is Fr J. Steele -- although, unlike Dr. Dragani, he isn't someone I respect (I did, in fact, know and respect him about 10 years ago) -- who said:

Quote

The OICWR crowd is a tiny but vocal minority resident mostly online at ByzCath. They are not representative of the countless good Eastern Catholics one finds in church on Sunday.

I would beg to differ that these malcontents do not display a toxic anti-Westernism. That is pretty much all they are about, save a tenuous and virtually meaningless communion with Rome.

Seriously though, that wouldn't suit the Vatican as Cardinal Lubomir Huzar was a leading proponent of the OICWR argument while he was Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - by far the largest of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome. The whole matter is most confusing to me, I must confess.

It's definitely a tricky issue.

On the hand, Catholicism isn't anything-goes, nor should it be. Excommunication is still a possibility (although I'm glad that they aren't handed out as easily as they were in Martin Luther's day). Fr Feeney comes to mind for example.

On the other hand, I think many Catholics nowadays feel far too empowered to politely encourage fellow Catholics (the ones they disagree with to be specific) to leave Catholicism. Few of them would phrase it the way Fr. Steele did, but it's extremely common* nevertheless.

* You'll recall I said earlier that I was amazed by what Dr. Dragani said. I should have said I was amazed that he said it. If it had been a Catholic I had just met on CAF, it would have been no surprise.